Semambo and Others v Minister of Home Affairs and Another (2015/3768) [2015] ZAGPPHC 560 (29 July 2015)

Semambo and Others v Minister of Home Affairs and Another (2015/3768) [2015] ZAGPPHC 560 (29 July 2015)

The court found that the applicant failed to exhaust internal remedies before approaching the court, as required by administrative law principles. The application did not set out sufficient grounds for constitutional or administrative review, and the prayers in Part B were either unsupported or based on a misunderstanding of the respondents' decisions. The court further noted that no decision declaring the second applicant undesirable had been made, and that the refusal of entry was based on a criminal conviction. As a result, the urgent relief sought in Part A was dismissed.

Citation
[2015] ZAGPPHC 560
Parties
Applicant: Rossy Nomsa Semambo & 3 Others; Respondent: Minister of Home Affairs; Respondent: Director-General of Department of Home Affairs
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 July 2015
Case Number
2015/3768
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Part a (urgent Relief) of Application; Hearing on Dismissal
Outcome
Part A of the application is dismissed; costs for today's hearing awarded against the applicant; balance of costs reserved for Part B.
Judges
GC Wright
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Internal Remedies Exhaustion, Constitutionality of Regulation, Undesirability Decision, Entry Refusal
Administrative Law Constitutional Law Judicial Review Internal Remedies Exhaustion Constitutionality of Regulation Undesirability Decision Entry Refusal

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rossy Nomsa Semambo & 3 Others

Applicant

Minister of Home Affairs

Respondent

Director-General of Department of Home Affairs

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Part a (urgent Relief) of Application; Hearing on Dismissal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to urgent interim relief pending the outcome of Part B.
  2. 2 Whether the respondents' decisions regarding entry and undesirability are reviewable.
  3. 3 Whether internal remedies have been exhausted before approaching the court.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to exhaust internal remedies before approaching the court, as required by administrative law principles. The application did not set out sufficient grounds for constitutional or administrative review, and the prayers in Part B were either unsupported or based on a misunderstanding of the respondents' decisions. The court further noted that no decision declaring the second applicant undesirable had been made, and that the refusal of entry was based on a criminal conviction. As a result, the urgent relief sought in Part A was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Part A of the application is dismissed; costs for today's hearing awarded against the applicant; balance of costs reserved for Part B.

Orders

  • Part A of the application is dismissed.
  • The applicant, Rossy Nomsa Semambo, is to pay the costs relating to today’s hearing.